Futurists do argue that Jesus never indicated
when He would return and that it is all about
our generation, today....

Hi!

This message is not an attack on Futurists.
It is simply a recording of what I see happen
and what I see happen to me almost every day.

Hi!

This message is not an attack on Futurists.
It is simply a recording of what I see happen
and what I see happen to me almost every day.

So read it, if you can stand the mirror and the
Scriptural argument made, from Scripture and
not interpretation, or you can bail out now,
already knowing your doctrine is false anyway.

Futurists do argue that Jesus never indicated
when He would return and that it is all about
our generation, today. But when saying that,
it is an admission that Jesus did indeed give
an indication and we all know why we use
that word "generation".

So to them, He specified "A" generation, but not
"THE" generation. They claim for example, that
He was saying that it would be the generation
that saw the things He listed.

I'm sorry, but that seems to me to be the response
of someone who doesn't think before he speaks,
because he's desperate to save his doctrine.

Why would Jesus need to tell them that?
OF COURSE the generation that sees the signs,
would be the generation to see the signs! DUH!

So to Futurists, Jesus was a real idiot! Think about it.
What would you be thinking if someone said something
like that? Hello??? "Duh, yea guys, duh... let's follow
him, otay?!". <chuckle>

And no, I'm not making fun of Jesus. I'm pointing out
how YOU ARE! (:

Futurists quote Acts 1:11 and say that it says that He
would return in the same way they saw Him leave.

But what does that mean?

Well, for some reason, vs 9-10 keep getting skipped,
even when mentioned and I have yet to have one single
Futurist respond on point to a quote of those two verses.

They quote...

"Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye
gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which
is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come
in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."
- Acts 1:11

But what does that mean? You see, the Futurists
conveniently leave out the description of how and
then insert their own doctrine and then claim that
one verse, which doesn't describe what just happened,
proves that they are right.

Yea, I'm sure that would pass in a court of law!

And don't bother telling me it's not about a court of law,
while you sit there and tell others how one of the reasons
people can reason that the Gospels are true, is because
they would be good testimony in a court of law. The
fact is, that it is simply a standard to measure logic by.
And leaving out the "how" and then claiming you've
proved the "how", is dishonest at best and you would
be impeached on the stand in a heartbeat!

So what is the context of that statement by the angels?
Let's look and see...

Acts 1:9-11

9) And when He [Jesus] had spoken these things,
while THEY beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud
received Him OUT OF THEIR SIGHT.
10) And while THEY looked steadfastly toward heaven
as He went up, behold, two men stood by THEM in
white apparel;
11) Which also said, YE MEN OF GALILEE, why stand
YE gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which
is taken up FROM YOU into heaven, shall so come
in like manner as YE have seen Him go into heaven.

Now three things are clear here.

1) They watched Him go up in a cloud, OUT OF
THEIR SIGHT. So what they were actually
watching, was a cloud go up, not Jesus Himself.

2) He ascended from Bethany (Luke 24:50-51)
and only His disciples saw Him.

3) The angels said that He would return in the
SAME way. What way was that? The Scripture
does indeed say it would be:

a) "In a cloud, OUT OF THEIR SIGHT".
b) With ONLY His disciples watching.
c) IN BETHANY.

So how can anyone say that Acts 1:11 is proof that
Christ would return, physically and visibly seen with
the human eye, riding a cloud for the world to see?

Never mind the line of sight problem that any pilot
can tell you about, which means that the whole
world could not possibly physically see Jesus riding
a cloud.

So there are indeed problems here, that show great
conflicts with the Futurist doctrine! And no, snipping
them and insulting me won't make them go away.

Problem #1) He was "out of their sight". Therefore,
they did NOT SEE Him ascend into
Heaven. Thus, when He returned,
it had to be "out of their sight".

Problem #2) Even if He were seen, then ONLY His
disciples (later called "Apostles") would
see it, since it says, "in the same way".

Problem #3) Since the Apostles are not physically alive
now, that means that He would have to
have returned before they all died, so
that THEY could see Him return!

Now many will try to get out of this dilemma, by saying
that "in the same way" doesn't mean it has to be exactly
in the same way. But if that's their position, then why
do they make such a big fuss about it being Jesus physically
and visibly riding a cloud? They demand that I must
believe that it is EXACTLY the way that THEY say, or
I am a heretic, according to them and I am flat out wrong.

So obviously, to them, IT WAS EXACTLY in the same way,
until I pointed out to them what that would really mean.
Then, all of the sudden, it becomes a game in which they
get to pick and choose what is, "in the same way". And
guess what boys and girls?! The ONLY things they pick,
are what they think they can twist to match their doctrine
and to Hell with the rest of it being the same! Yippee!

So scratch Acts 1:11 as being proof for their doctrine.

So what's next? Well, they tell me how Revelation 1:7
says that Jesus will be seen by "every eye". They say
that "every eye shall see Him". But does it say that?

Sure! But does that mean it says what they claim it means?
Let's not forget our lesson about how they treat Acts 1:11.

Before looking at the verse, I would like to say that this
is the typical Futurist response. To completely ignore
what was just said and then quote another verse and
then complain that I am the one who ignores the Scriptures.

The problem with that is:

1) It is they who are ignoring the simple Scriptural facts
presented to them. I did not add one single word to
Scripture and no interpretation was needed. So their
claim that they read Acts 1:11 as it's written, is bull.
And they know it, because their response is not to
tell me WHY I'm wrong, but rather, to suddenly
claim that "It doesn't mean EXACTLY the same".
Weak minded, at best!

2) Instead of responding on point, they chose to fight
Scripture with Scripture. Now what does that mean,
when I say that? It's simple, really. When you post
a Scripture and it is responded to and you are proved
wrong about what you said (which you know you are,
or you would have responded to what I said, instead
of trying to ignore it) and you do so with another
passage, as if to say that the first one now doesn't
matter, even though it clearly says what I stated,
then you are in effect saying, "Well, that one can't
be right, because look at what this one says.". In
other words, you have just abandoned Acts 1:11,
because it no longer suits you.

3) You will again quote Acts 1:11 later, pretending
(and knowingly doing so) that it still says what
you claimed it does. Now just how weak is it
for you to claim that, when you know very well
that what you said is not in that passage, when
the surrounding passages are read with it? You
simply glossed right over what didn't suit you.
And you already admitted that it doesn't have
to be exactly the same, yet demand it does
the next time you quote it, because you want
to believe that it means that He's physically
seen riding a cloud and you will again ignore
vs 9-10, intentionally. That proves, beyond
any doubt whatsoever, that you are dishonest
and that you handle the word of God dishonestly!

As for Rev 1:7, if one argued that, then as I said,
they would be trying to fight Scripture with Scripture.
Is that the Christian approach and the proper method
of interpretation? No, of course not! But why doesn't
anyone answer that question, when I ask it? That in
itself, is quite telling!

But let's look at one other verse, before we get to
Revelation 1:7. It is the one that you have seen
me quote many times and it is the one that really
gets your blood boiling! Now why you would get
angry about what this passage says, should really
make you think about what it is you are trying to
fight for! But for the Futurist, it is simply a reason
to get angry at me!

"The burden against Egypt. Behold, the Lord
rides on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt;
The idols of Egypt will totter at His presence,
and the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst."
- Isaiah 19:1

Now this is indeed a fulfilled prophecy. This is about
the time that God used the Assyrians to judge Egypt.

Now of course, some will claim that it has never been
fulfilled. But they know it has and they know they
haven't a leg to stand on, which is why they know
better than to push it, especially since I proved it
more than once. But for a moment, they hope that
I forgot and try to claim it wasn't. Not very bright.

Furthermore, are they now arguing that Jesus will ride
a cloud in twice? Once to Egypt and then the one where
everybody in the world sees Him?

You see, they don't think about the ramifications of
what they're saying when they try to weasel out of
what they know it means for their doctrine, because
they know it isn't good for their doctrine and that
really annoys them! Imagine, being annoyed at
God's word, because it contradicts your doctrine.
yea, that's the Christian way, huh?! (:

They only care about not admitting to what they
know it says, period.

Think about it...

1) Isaiah 19:1 = Fulfilled.

2) Isaiah 19:1 has God riding on a cloud.

3) No one physically saw God riding on a cloud.

4) Christians (for the most part) claim that Jesus
was God walking Earth.

5) Jesus said that He would come in the clouds.

6) Being God manifested to us and Jesus being
the One who addressed the Jews of the OT
(see 1 Cor 10:1-4, for example), He would
have spoken in the same manner God spoke
to His people previously.

7) Futurist Christians say it is physically literal,
which means that He must have been out
to totally confuse them and give them no
shot at it figuring it out, since He spoke to
Jews and came to the Jews (Mat 15:22-24)
and the Bible says that "God is not the author
of confusion".

Hmmm... You don't see a problem with this picture? :)

The problem here, is that when they are forced to admit
that Isaiah 19:1 was indeed fulfilled and that even their
own Futurist author heroes confess that, the only response
I get from the Futurists in these groups about this, which
they claim is them "kicking my ***** with Scripture" and is
me just ignoring Scripture, is as follows:

"Well, just because it was symbolic then, doesn't mean
it's not physically literal when Jesus said it!"

Yes folks, that and ONLY that, is what they call a response
that "kicks my ***** Scripturally"! The Futurists are just so
damn Scripturally cool man!!! I guess I just had nothin'
for 'em, huh?!? <lol>

So what is the rule here? To interpret the language in
the same way that the Bible shows it was used? Or to
say that it was symbolic then, but that it's physically
literal when Jesus said it, because that suits a doctrine?

Doesn't that seem to be based on the vanity and ego
of the person who says that? "It has to be about me
and my generation, or the Bible is useless.".

And yes, Futurists have actually said to me...

"If the Bible's not about us and our time, then what
good is it?"

Huh??? What??? The Bible is no good, if it's not
about you and your time?!

Gee, those poor generations of people before you!
The Bible was no good, because it wasn't about
then and their time!

Oh, but wait, let's look at the typical Futurist response...

"Well, they got to look forward to our time!"

1) HOW VAIN!!!

2) Sorry, you lose! You already said that the Bible
is useless, if it isn't about the generation that's
reading it!

You know folks, the sad part is, that saying this kind
of crap doesn't even phase the Futurist!

And what's even sadder, is that they don't realize that
they just said that the very Scriptures that the Apostles
were writing, were useless! That's right, because those
prophecies about Jesus' coming, according to the
Futurists, were not about them and their time!

The absolute gall of the Futurist!!! So they must try to
make it sound like they're right, when they claim that
Isaiah was symbolic, but Jesus was being physically
literal. Yea, okay! :)

"Behold, the Lord rides on a swift cloud..." - Isaiah 19:1

"...and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds
of heaven" - Matthew 24:30

Yea, big difference there, huh?!? :)

The fact is, that both of the statements are indeed
symbolism of the Lord coming in judgment!

And let us learn what Jesus said in Matthew 21:33-43.
He showed that it was the same people that killed the
son, that the owner came back and took vengeance on.

The Futurists on the other hand, know that the Bible
says that the descendants are no longer held to be
accountable for the sins of the father and yet, they
try to claim that the Bible says that those who would
live almost 2,000 years later are those who will pay
the price for killing the Son! How badly can a person
twist Scripture?! It is too sad!

I say that we let Scripture interpret Scripture, instead of
just claiming to do it, until we see something we don't
like, amen?

With that in mind, let's look at Revelation 1:7 and see
what it actually does say. Let's see if it contradicts what
the other passages say. After all, this is important since:

1) If it does, then we need to throw our Bibles out!

2) And if it doesn't, then the Futurists need to throw
their doctrines out, amen?

I guess I won't get an amen on #2, huh? I believe
that Futurists, while claiming to say "Sola Scriptura!",
they would actually LOVE TO RIP OUT a number of
passages! Why? Because they contradict their doctrine!
And the evidence for this, is how often they ignore
what they are shown, when it contradicts their doctrine
and refuse to respond on point to them and try to
claim it was me doing that, when in reality, they're
trying to make that claim, when their response
ignored the points made and I wouldn't go for their
game of trying to do that and told them so!

Anyway... :)

"Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see
Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of
the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen."
- Revelation 1:7

1) The Greek word behind the word "earth", does not mean
"the planet". No more than saying, "I planted a tree
into the earth" means that it took up the whole planet.
It is about that region, which is the Jewish land. And
yes, according to the Bible, it was the Jews who did
crucify Christ, even though the Romans physically
drove the nails in.

Acts 2:22-23

22) Ye men OF ISRAEL, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth,
a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders
and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye
yourselves also know:
23) HIM, being delivered by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God, YE HAVE TAKEN, and by wicked
hands HAVE CRUCIFIED and slain.

And this should teach you that it is about the spiritual
effects of this event.

2) The Greek word behind "see" can also be used to show
understanding. Or have you never said, "Oh, I see
what you're saying..." ??? You see, for Futurists,
common sense goes out the window and there is
no such thing as a figure of speech, nor symbolism
when they read the Bible! Sad!

But let's look at what the Lord said...

"Therefore I speak to them in parables, because
seeing they do not see..." - Matthew 13:13a

Now do you really think that Jesus was saying,
"physically seeing, they do not physically see" ???
Of course not!

3) Now what is important to note here? Simple! Whom
did Rev 1:7 say would "see Him"? It says that it would
be "they who pierced Him". Now when did they live?
In the first century, in the same generation that Christ
lived in. Thus, we have those who pierced Him, seeing
Him coming. This cannot be disputed!!!

Now some will try to say, "Oh, this happens after
the resurrection!". But we both know that the Bible
teaches that He is seen coming and then AFTER that,
the resurrection happens. Thus, it HAS to happen
before the generation that pierced Him dies off!
That IS what the Bible says!

Now this is what the Scriptures says, not me. I didn't
make this up and I didn't write it.

You see, the Futurists have been so brainwashed into
glossing right over any words that don't support their
doctrine, that they do not even see these words,
because "seeing they do not see". (:

The time frame is indeed given right in that same verse!

And let us not forget that Revelation starts and ends
by saying that it will happen soon, that "THE TIME
is at hand" and that Jesus is "coming quickly". And
John is specifically told NOT to seal his book, because
THE TIME is at hand!

Yet the Futurists want me to believe that Daniel,
who wrote a Messianic book about the Messiah,
was told to seal his book, because about 600 years
had to pass and that John was told NOT to seal
his book, because the time was at hand and that
somehow means that almost 2,000 years and
counting had to pass! Please!

Jesus unsealed Daniel, when He quoted Daniel 12
and applied it to Himself and His time! And this is
just another question that the Futurists dodge when
I ask them about it and then claim to be honest! (:

And no, the typical response of, "Well, some of the
things would happen soon, but not all of them"
doesn't work! That is the Futurist, being forced to
admit to what they just saw and then still trying to
wiggle out of it! Revelation starts by saying that
what is written in it, must come to pass shortly.

Note: "must SHORTLY come to pass".

Note: "MUST shortly come to pass".

And let us please look at what Jesus said in Matthew
and let us note that we all know that Rev 22:12 is
about the return of Christ in judgment and note the
almost word for word repeating between what Jesus
said in Matthew and what He said in Revelation and
He placed it within the lifetime of the disciples.

I am going to use the LITV, because it is a very literal
translation. You see, what a lot of people don't know
about, is the urgency stated in the New Testament.
Lots of times, when it is translated as "shall be",
or "shall come", the actual Greek word behind it is,
"mello" and that word means, "being about to be".

It was about to happen!!!

Ever wonder why Felix trembled so much, when Paul
told him about the judgment? It wasn't because Paul
was preaching about the judgment that may even be
thousands of years off. Nor was it even because he
had preached about the judgment. As Paul said to
him, he (Felix) already knew about the way of the
Jews and their religion. So that wouldn't scare him.

It was because Paul, literally translated, said to Felix...

"The judgment ABOUT TO BE/HAPPEN!"

THAT'S why Felix trembled! Look it up for yourself in
the original Greek.

Anyway, back to Matthew and Revelation. I have inserted
Revelation 22:12 in between the two verses from Matthew,
to show their similarity. And remember that Revelation
closes with Jesus saying, "I am coming quickly".

Matthew 16:27-28 [LITV]

27) For the Son of Man is ABOUT TO COME with His angels
in the glory of His Father. And then He will give reward to
each according to his practice.

"And, behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is
with Me, to give to each as his work is." - Rev 22:12

28) Truly I say to you, There are some STANDING HERE
who will NOT taste of death, never, until they see the Son
of Man coming in His Kingdom.

You see, it doesn't say, "the Son of man will come" (v27),
as in some distant future thing and that is simply a bad
translation.

The Greek word there is "mello", which actually means,
"be(ing) about to be". It speaks of immanency, not
faroffanency. :)

And lest we try to play word games and claim that "imminent"
means, "could be far off, but when it happens, it'll happen
quickly" (which we all know isn't what "imminent" means,
but it gets redefined as that when Futurists open their
Bibles), let us pay attention to what the Greek really says.

Imminent - likely to occur at any moment; impending.

Impending - about to happen; imminent.

Yes indeed, imminent is something that is about to happen!

It actually says, "about to be". It was about to happen!
And let us notice what else Jesus said, since He also said
that there were some STANDING THERE that would NOT
die, before He returned in His Kingdom to judge!

Once again, let's look at it...

Matthew 16:27-28 [LITV]

27) For the Son of Man is ABOUT TO COME with His angels
in the glory of His Father. And then He will give reward to
each according to his practice.

"And, behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is
with Me, to give to each as his work is." - Rev 22:12

28) Truly I say to you, There are some STANDING HERE
who will NOT taste of death, never, until they see the Son
of Man coming in His Kingdom.

Let us also note the comparison to Rev 22:12, which no one
argues isn't about the Second Coming. We all know that it
is. But do we take the time to note the similarity in words
with Mat 16:27 above? And if it is shown to us, are we
willing to admit it? One person said about what I showed
regarding a verse (they said it to someone else who tried
to insult me and claimed that this person was also saying
that it didn't say what he claimed); And so, she said to
him, "Did I say it trumped Acts 1:11?". That's really an
interesting comment, given that they were shown what
Acts 1:11 says in context and what the other verses I
quoted actually say. (:

Anyway, compare Mat 16:27-28 and Rev 22:12 for yourself...

Mat - He is about to come.
Rev - He is coming quickly.

Mat - He will give His reward.
Rev - His reward is with Him.

Mat - He will give these rewards to them according
to their practice.
Rev - He will give these rewards to each according
to their practice.

It is clear by these passages, that Jesus was telling
His disciples that His return would not be far off and
that some (at least one, but not most) standing there
would still be alive when He returned. There is no
way around these facts, if one is honest with oneself
about what the Bible says in these passages. And
there is no disputing that John did indeed live until
70 AD! And Revelation was written before 70 AD
and not after and I have proved that that is true,
beyond a reasonable doubt and would be glad to
do so again! In fact, on the most ancient copies,
it is titled, "The Revelation which was made by God
to John the evangelist in the island of Patmos, into
which he was thrown by Nero Caesar". And I have
even provided evidence that Paul was still alive and
wrote a letter after Revelation and Paul did indeed
die before 70 AD!

And now let's read what else Jesus said about when
He would return...

"Assuredly, I say to you, THIS GENERATION will by
no means pass away till all these things take place."
- Matthew 24:34

And that Greek word, that is translated into "Assuredly",
is very emphatic! It is as if He is staking His entire
credibility on this statement!

And bear in mind, that while people say that Jesus said
that no one would know when, they are twisting His words!

1) He did not say, "No one will know when". He said
that no one would know THE DAY, nor THE HOUR.
Anything more than that, is their imagination at work,
trying to force His words to fit their doctrine!

2) Jesus did give an outer limit. He said "this generation"
and said it to those standing in front of Him!

Now we can add words and try to claim that we know
"what Jesus REALLY meant", or we can just believe Him!

We can claim He said, "the generation alive at the time
these things happen", but can anyone show me those
words in that verse? And why does every Futurist
either duck out when I ask them to do that, or try
to change the subject, by saying...

"Oh, well, that's what he meant, because look at this verse
and this verse and this verse..."

Once again, they try to fight Scripture with Scripture!
And not only that, but their bad interpretations of it!

The fact is, when I ask someone to show me those words,
I get either silence, or insults. But that's okay, because
I know that the Futurist rule is that if I call you a liar,
I'm evil and have no love in me. But if you call me evil,
or even "Satan", then you are a good Christian! Yes folks,
it's the Futurist rule and they can't be wrong!

And before you ask me for proof that Christ returned in
70 AD, remember that when I provided the historical
proof that you asked for, you attacked me, saying that
I was treating historical writings as if they were Scripture
and yet, you seem to think you're not a hypocrite. (:

And then there's always the ones who demand to know
when He was seen riding a cloud, after they snipped the
text that I had written, which shows that it was symbolic
language and so, they know that I don't believe that He
would have physically ridden a cloud for human eyes
to look up and point at! But hey, Futurists are always
honest and are good, loving Christians, even though
they are actually trying to avoid what I showed them,
right? (:

And lest someone say that Matthew 16:27-28 is about
some other event, let us remember that it is quoted by
Futurists as if it were speaking of His Second Coming,
until this problem is pointed out, which is true, but it
does not leave you the option of now claiming that it
was about the Transfiguration, nor Pentecost, which
is the fall back position of the Futurists, when they are
shown what He actually said. But yet, those good
honest Futurists do anyway! Yippee! What honesty!

The fact is, they quote v27 and skip v28! That is
normal for the "One Verse Wonders"!

And as I said, this is not an attack. This is a statement
of true events! This is what happens when I post these
things, period!

But let's take a quick look at those events and remember
that if it is about one of those events, then *ALL* of the
factors much match!

Transfiguration: That was only days later and they were
all alive (Jesus said only "some" would be). There was
no coming in the glory of His Father and no angels with
Him and there was no rewarding according to their works.

Pentecost: That was right after His Ascension and only
one had died (Jesus said that only "some" would be alive,
not "most"). There was no coming in the glory of His
Father and no angels with Him and there was no rewarding
according to their works.

So neither of those events fits the requirements to be
considered as a fulfillment of that event. It is clear that
both Matthew 16:27-28 & Revelation 22:12 are talking
about the same event and that His return was to be quick,
before all of the disciples (later called "Apostles") died.

Now in my opinion THIS is the moment of truth for you.
This is when you get to define whether or not you are
going to handle Scripture honestly and rightly divide
the word of truth.

And I know that you know that what is stated about these
passages above is correct, since I did not add to the word,
but only repeated it and compared it to itself. So it isn't
a matter of interpretation here. It's a matter of believing
Him or not believing Him. So will you believe Him? Or
will you rebel against it, because it doesn't fit a doctrine
that you want to believe, but can't back up and don't
care, because when you're in a news group, you think
"keyboard courage" equates to truth?

No matter how many times you try to claim it, ignoring
these simple facts and trying to fight Scripture with
Scripture and insulting me, isn't going to make the
problem go away and let's face it, that's ALL you have
to respond with!

And that is why more people leave the Christian faith
over Matthew 24:34, than anything else that I can
think of. Because there is no honest answer, except,
"Yes, He did mean exactly what He said, period!".

And many pastors leave the pulpit over it. They simply
can't lie any more. Not to themselves and not to their
congregation. No more! But apparently you can, huh? (:

Which should we do? Filter our doctrines through Scripture?
Or filter Scripture through our doctrine? You must decide
this for yourself.

So it is your choice now, whether to believe the Scriptures
or not, since the wording is clear and is not mysterious.

Again, I'm not attacking you. I'm stating facts here.
And no amount of trying to weasel out of this will
help you.

Saying that my post was too long will not help you.

Pasting in quotes of me, while twisting my words
and claiming I was saying something with those
words that I wasn't, will not help you.

Claiming I said things I never said will not help you.
And this, people do and when asked to quote me
saying it, can't. And yet, they won't admit that.

Insulting me will not help you.

Trying to fight Scripture with Scripture will not help you.

None of these things will make the truth go away and it
will eat at you your whole life! You can SAY that you
believe what you're saying, but the truth is, you don't!
You know better! And that is where your anger comes
from and that is why you cannot respond on point and
try to find ways out of it, like those listed above. You
know. And I know that you know. That is a fact and
one you can deny, but it is one that you can't get rid of.

And no, I will not respond to your dribble. Either it's
on point, without snipping everything and it's without
trying to fight Scripture with Scripture and it's without
trying to change the subject, or don't bother, period!

Now I truly and sincerely do hope that God blesses you
with this and that you do get honest with God and with
yourself! Aren't you tired of lying to God and to yourself?

If not, then get tired of it! Repent and believe Jesus
and what He said! Not what you wish He said and
then twist His words into saying and then get mad
when people don't agree with you, because they
know how to read!

Rejecting a doctrine is not rejecting God, nor His word!
It's only rejecting a doctrine that didn't stand up to
Scripture, that's it!

--

A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.